This forum is for posts that relate to the IRP interim report specifically. We already have forums for all the announced lines of enquiry. So I think where it is a technical discussion on e.g. Governance or Strategy it may be better to post to one of those forums. But I'm pretty ok with it either way. The announced lines of enquiry are:

* Governance, including election of directors, term limits, independence of the Representative Council and compliance

* Remuneration, including disclosures, compliance with laws and accounting standards and benchmarking processes

* Marketing strategy and expenditure, including consistency with Board approved strategy and appropriateness of expenditure

* Strategy and performance of member services and engagement

* Strategy and performance of CPA Advice

* Other matters the reviewers consider appropriate.

It's going to be an interesting report. Looking at that topic Strategy and performance of CPA Advice, I'd guess they got their hands on the super confidential business projections then? Well soon see.

From a cursory glance at the executive summary of this report, it appears that the panel has missed the point of member's anger.

In particular, the response on CPA's governance is poor. There is no hardhitting recommendation calling for an overhaul of governance, rather a 'soft touch' approach. A hard reset of the constitution is required, and this report just doesn't call for it.

I am not sure if we will be getting any big announcements or findings out of this review at this stage or even at the final stage. A lot of reading between the lines will be required.

I thought the section 5.2.7 It would be good practice for CPA Australia’s Board to have time to explore issues or concerns without management present (in-camera), was quite telling in the way CPA was potentially being run at the time.

Well I have only just skimmed through it, will delve in more over the coming days, but initial feelings are of disappointment and frustration. I get that they have to use "management language" and can't just say it like it is, but seems like they've missed the point, maybe that's due to the terms of reference, i'll need to consider that. But yeah... It might lead to a slight cultural shift at CPAA headquarters over the coming years until it's forgotten about again, but it's certainly not going to instigate the change required in the timeframe i think most of us here were hoping for.

I expect in the coming days we'll be encouraging Brett and the others here leading the charge to throw everything they've got at this. I made a small contribution to Brett when the initial call went out, but I suspect i'll be looking under the couch for a few more bucks soon. Or going ahead with a change to CA/IPA.

I'll read the entire thing closer another day, but just skimming through it it's a huge disappointment:

[ 1 ] no recommendation that members should been electing the board, and not the Representative Council.
[ 2 ] Divisional Councils and Representative Councils still confuses me; there's no recommendation that they should go. There are Councils and Committees everywhere.
[ 3 ] most members will probably read this doc, so why didn't they take the opportunity to name all the RC members remaining and the RC members who left/were removed, aka transparency.
[ 4 ] their reference to increasing membership numbers YOY justifying the marketing spend is a poor conclusion. It's a self-serving statement we'd expect from the departed and soon-to-be departed board; not from a review panel.
[ 5 ] didn't mention that CPAA has sent out an email to all of us today, with a link to the report, but the board never granted that courtesy to Brett or anyone else.
[ 6 ] no recommendation that the board allow the Secretary to send an email to all members on behalf of a member.
[ 7 ] the report doesn't address the issue of why board did not call an EGM to fill the casual vacancy. This is, after all, a report on governance.
[ 8 ] re the Malley ETP, no mention that public companies can only pay out a maximum of one year's salary.
[ 9 ] and this is the clanger - they recommend a review of CPAA Advice! We don't need a review, it needs to be closed down and binned. No wonder members in public practice are making enquiries elsewhere (or have left).

At least they concluded almost everyone was overpaid. I don't think they could've come to any other conclusion.

CPAA Advice would have to be one of the dumbest things I've seen in 36 odd years as a member. The marketing money wasted on the NBL sponsorship, the book, the tv show, and Neil Armstrong et. al, runs a close second.

Governance - No direct election of the board. No imposition of max terms, other than the RC "consider carefully". Nothing relating to conflicts of interest. Nothing about accountability and responsibility of the previous board. Imagine a recommendation "the new board proceed with civil proceeding against former directors/CEO for breaches of the Corporation Act".

Remuneration - No direct reductions, caps or clear limits. Bench marking against other "like" organisations is so flimsy and weak. At least it will be reported going forward. The recommendation "tying CEO salary with membership number and revenue" is terrible! That was what the CPA has been using to justify the mess to begin with! Increase membership fees, pad membership with ASAs, get a pay increase.

CPA Advice - Post implementation review only. Seriously!? The whole thing is totally beyond saving. It kind of reminds me of plantation marketing schemes. So much money in, nothing out and the whole thing collapses. The creators sucked all the value out leave investors/(members) stuck with the losses.

The section on marketing was relatively speaking quite hard hitting. All the Alex Malley centric marketing was controlled by him. As I suspected there was no overall marketing strategy for the organisation.

The graph comparing his salary increases to membership numbers was telling.

It's great that the report encourages state DC's to be used more to communicate concerns of members but at the end of the day things will go back to what they are now at some point in the future.

Disappointed that no structural change to governance wasn't recommended, i.e. directly electing the board.
It was also quite startling that Mr Malley's job wasn't actually to run the organisation day to day but market and provide "inspiring leadership to the exec team".....WTF.... Certainly nothing about providing services to the membership. Also the INTHEBlack Magazine costs a fortune and I certainly don't read it....

They nailed the lie of CPA Advice meeting the business plan, which was good and really in a round about way called for it to be shut down.

Not sure this report gives me enough of an incentive to pay the subs come December.

The report fails to tell us anything that we didn't already know:
CPA senior executives are overpaid.
CPA spend $30m on advertising but how is that justified and what benefit has that provided to members?
Why hasn't an independent review of matters concerning Graeme Wade and the NBL been provided?
Why is it acceptable to hide disclosures in subsidiaries?
Why is acceptable to hold the AGM in Singapore when 70% of members are in Australia?
How does CPA Advice have any business plan that passes even rudimentary consideration? Surely it cannot be to churn through $7.4m in 18 months and then through another huge amount in 2017?
Why were directors and executives paid from CPA Advice when it raised only $49k revenue?
What exactly do staff members at CPA advice do all day - play cricket?
What remedial actions have been put in place to consider how to make CPA Advice profitable - by slashing revenues by half - what about the cost base?
Why are CPA making so much money from training - is CPD to build professional standards or to pump money into CPA?
How are members going to be provided with voice to the Constitution when we cant even ask questions at an AGM except via electronic means?
Why is there no consideration of the impact of the loss of the CPA Scheme with the PSC when CPA say that it is not bound by it By-laws but has those same By-Laws registered with the PSC?
Jeff Hughes and Adam Awty are being massively overpaid -what is to be done about it?
Who approved Malley's contract and why?

How is the CPA Constitution to be overhauled to return CPA to a member organisation and allow members a voice?
When and how does this happen?

Are any members of the board spill team to be elected to the board in the coming period?

"8.2.5 Feedback to the review panel indicates that on occasions, member interactions with staff and members have not been respectful and have been damaging."

"CPA Australia currently does not have a charter that explicitly governs the standard of behavior of members when dealing with staff and members."

"It is the Review Panel's view that, given the incidence and frequency of disrespectful communication in writing, face-to-face, and in social media that has been brought to its attention, it would be timely for CPA Australia to articulate a policy that sets a minimum standard for appropriate professional behaviour in relationship to the organisation"

"Preliminary recommendation: CPA Australia institute a code for appropriate professional behaviour by members."

"It is the Review Panel's preliminary recommendation that CPA Australia articulate a policy that sets a minimum standard for appropriate professional behaviour in relationship to the organisation"

Dear members of CPA Australia. This appears to say that a new code of ethics will be implemented for members, so that is silences them from making negative comment. Now l am not sure why, they really need this, but lets take a guess. Well, Brett and the many thousand of members have posted comments which are critical of the previous/current board and the manner in which they operate. Maybe the CPA Australia members have had extreme difficultly in dealing with the phone system and services at CPA Australia which when you call, goes to the reception, then goes to the person who you think you should talk too, and then because that person is too busy, it goes to answering machine and then back to reception.

May l suggest that CPA Australia provide a contact list for members, so that they can call the relevant department or have an email list so that members can forward an email to the relevant department and reduce the difficult phone calls. Maybe the CPA Australia members are extremely frustrated, at the system which makes it so hard to speak to the right person and then get a resolution of the problem. Also if the problems gets too difficult, then the staff member should refer the relevant member to their manager or department head to deal with, or refer the matter to an independent resolution officer. Maybe the members should have the opportunity to refer their case, if not help with the dealing with the relevant staff member or department to an independent resolution officer. How about CPA Australia take a guide from the Australia Taxation office. They are bigger, deal with thousands of more individuals and have even more angry individuals to deal with, but have options to deal with such issues. Maybe the Federal Government should issue a policy to all Australians on a minimum standard for professional behaviour when dealing the ATO or any other government departments, and the individual needs to have a low tone of voice and talk very softly in order not to upset anyone or so individuals in the relevant department wont make a wrong conclusion. What next, all members of CPA Australia, will need to sign a non-disclosure agreement, when becoming members and agree not to saying anything in the public forum which is critical of those in management positions?

Finally, instead of the above, how about cut the $31 million advertising budget and spend money on better computer technology, and services and processes to help resolve problems. Maybe CPA Australia needs Beverley Sadler who is the head of the Human Resources Department from the ABC TV show "Utopia" to help implement new systems of communications.

"Preliminary recommendation: CPA Australia institute a code for appropriate professional behaviour by members."

"It is the Review Panel's preliminary recommendation that CPA Australia articulate a policy that sets a minimum standard for appropriate professional behaviour in relationship to the organisation"

I think they need to consider their own actions that lead to this. Sending front line staff out with responses that are obvious lies is just not going to work. E.g. tell them Find A CPA is offline because of a technical fault.

They lie their heads off and then if people get angry about it they say the members are the problem. What a joke.

I hope the panel does a lot more reviewing of the root cause rather than the effect.

For example what was the basis for the "emergency" that led to Youngberrys appointment to the board - absolutely zero details in the prelim report except the board acted in accordance with some legal advice. A little bit of transparency would help with member engagement!

from the AFR. Now the review shows the spending on the NRL Rabbitohs???????? Are the members going to find out next that the 2GB spot with Alex Malley is paid for by CPA Australia?

sport sponsorship over 5 years total $3.5 million.
Naked CEO website and Naked CEO book over two years $1.8 milion. I do not think they would have made any money on this book, and if they did, then tell the members. How much did they pay Alex Malley for the royalty rights to his image ?

The In conversation program between 2015 and 2016 was $4.16 million. Didn't the board say they spent on $474K on this TV show???

Publication "In The Black", CPA Update and CPA Tax News for 2016 was $4.7million. I would suggest that the largest cost would be the "In The Black" publication and postage. Again its time to offer members the right not to receive this magazine, or receive it via internet to save the large publication and postage costs.

How do they spend $4.5million on Networking events, boot camps and other events to engage young professionals, students and employers. Sounds like more information is required in this area to quantify the expenditure. Are they really getting any value for the dollar or just spending more in overseas places to sign up members, in order to encourage end year KPI's for the management team? How much bonus payments do they pay to the sale's representatives that go out to the networking events to sign up all these young members?????

Again these are the things the members wanted to ask at the AGM, but the board didn't want to answer because they would have to justify the expenditure. Again its time to provide detailed financial reports each year to the members of this Not-For Profit organisation and not this consolidated/compressed reports which hide the real situation.

"CPA Australia currently does not have a charter that explicitly governs the standard of behavior of members when dealing with staff and members."

That reminds me of the "respectful" management communications I received earlier this year when CPA management had their backs to the wall and they were trying to explain away their lack of tranparency and an AGM in Singapore.

$3.5 m in total for Australia Open for four years or $875,000 per year. NBL for one year due the members raising serious concerns and Rabbitohs sponsorship for two year for which the review has indicated that no clear reason for the sponsorship and contained large proportion of benefits that are entertainment related. Well then, how much FBT was paid with regards to this entertainment and did Alex Malley authorise this sponsorship, and has it breached the CPA Constitution???

$4.16m between 2015 and 2016 for TV Show and website. They really didn't want to disclose this.

FightMND sponsorship is being questioned???? Why was it undertaken???? Serious governance questions??? We the members would have never found out about this from the CPA accounts.

INTHEBLACK cost $4.5m for 2016. Again is it not time to review this?????

There are many questions about other expenditure like consultants fees, legal fees, costs to State Presidents and Committee members. Would think that the State Presidents, committee members will be asking for an increase in their remunerations for the time they spend providing their time to the organisation?

Page 71 "there has been an over-emphasis on marketing activities centred on the (former) CEO"

I question whether member numbers and growth should even be a KPI, and should it perhaps be member satisfaction that's measured. I'd rather be part of an organisation with 10,000 members and getting or seeing something worthwhile for my membership $$. To quote the great Kevin Costner, if you build it they will come. Create a great organisation with very happy members and they'll do the advertising for you, and member growth will be a byproduct. I've got a good mate in the IPA who I used to make fun of (how the tables have turned), but he tells me and shares things the IPA do, like listening to member feedback, and trying to help out and advocate for members, and I tell you i'm a hair's breadth away from joining them.

Re: the FightMND thing, I recall raising concerns at the time, not sure if I sent an email or just grumbled about it, I forget if CPAA were donating to or sponsoring it, but i'm not sure it's the place of a NFP membership organisation to be doing that. Nothing against the charity, but I don't pay my CPAA membership fees for them to pass it on to a charity. I'll choose which charities I support and how much time or money I give them thank you very much.

However from what I have read, the report did not address the following issues:

1. Governance - the reason why all these issues arose is because the board has been acting with its own agenda and no one checking on them including the representative council and divisional council. Therefore a direct election of the board is required. A democratic system as mentioned by senator Xenophon.

2. Marketing - I don't think one can use membership number as a kpi for the CEO. Because of that we had a CEO focused on membership and neglected existing members' in the sense of support and value.

Also the report identified that Malley and the board had been paid handsomely above benchmark, including Malley's ETP. Can the members start a class action to claw back the money from the directors, in particular the person or persons who authorised the ETP. Clearly, it was not for the benefit of the organisation. What do you guys think?